Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

but chocolate would be chocolate, shoes and democracy would be the same whether you put them here or in, for example, australia.

you, however, whilst being materially the same wherever you crop up, only gain the definition of nationality by virtue of the area of the world you are born (or parents or grandparents depending on individually made up rules). you asked if you are british. this just shows what a nonsense the concept "british" is. take your genes, clone them, and "birth" them in different parts of the world and your nationality is changed, although materially you have not substantially altered.

I'll give you democracy. As an idea, not in practise of course.

But shoes and chocolate I'm, afraid I'd argue with. Why? They are ultimatly human produced products of the soil of where they are sourced. For example, I can't stand alpine milk. yuck-very bitter, and I hate alpine chocolate made from alpine milk. It has a different taste, to, lets say, belgian milk. Its not to do with the poeple making the chocolate, its do do with the area where the cows eat the milk in. Honestly, I'm not making this up. Its a geographocal causation of a difference in the taste of a human product.

(I hope that is coherant ...I've had a glass of wine so it might not be. If its not I'll try and make it coherant tomorrow. )

My genes were included in my question fo whether I'm british. Personally, I feel one can be culturally more of one country, or more of many countries. I don't think difference is bad, I think its enriching. Influence of climate, products, weather, might all be important.

Place is differnet: and some quite reasonable people would say adaptation to place is different...I'm not going to give examples because I don't want to feed the racists.

BleepinHell

dervish wrote: »

1. ILLEGAL immigrants do not pay taxes - it is impossible.

2 Legal immigrants (the minority of immigrants) then proceed to take their net income out of the country which is very bad for the UK.

3. Th erace riots of the Nprthern English cities of the last 10 years highlight the perils of unchecked immigration. The social and cultural threads have been ripped apart from ghettoisation and civil breakdown.

4. A more long-term approach would be to incentivise the indigineous population to work (either through rewards or sanctions) so that this once proud country does not havr to shamefully rely on immigration to fill gaps in the labour market.

People deserting New Labour in there millions so have to import a fresh lot of labour voters. The Mayor of calais has even begged we get our house in order to quote him"Stop giving them A House Free health care and money to spend immediatly they arrive and our {ei frances}prob will go away" You lot seem clued up on economics so please explain to me how if for example we cant get people to do cleaning jobs for £5.70ph it makes sense to import poor peeps to do it for that wage?
What if we put the wage u to say £9.50ph lots would want to do it and the job would be even regarded as being a respectable worthy occupation.OK So you lot pay a bit extra for your frozen peas. Isnt that how market forces work? Because mark my words "Theres NO job in this Country that a Brit will not do. Just pay us the rate to do it.

dervish

Cleaver wrote: »

Dervish is a racist. And before the 'free speech' brigade kick in, I'm more than happy for Dervish to come on here and be racist, that's her business. But it's also free speech to be able to respond.

...however it is wrong, and illegal, to make libellous comments like the above.

Also it is against the websites rules to personally insult fellow MSErs such as you have done to me.

ninky_2

dervish wrote: »

...however it is wrong, and illegal, to make libellous comments like the above.

Also it is against the websites rules to personally insult fellow MSErs such as you have done to me.

fyi and others who have a problem with dervish's views being described as racist (nb a viewpoint can be racist but a person is not "a racist").

racialism or racism n. 1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. 2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief. - racialist or racist n., adj.

so the implication that 'foreigners' automatically tax dodge or take money out of the country whilst brits are hardworking and "once proud" suggests "races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors" and that indigenous brits (whoever they might be) have "an intrinsic superiority over others".

just one example of a racist viewpoint put forward by dervish.

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

Thanks for the this video. It's the reason why I work very hard in the area of public understanding of science.

It's amazing what a little knowledge can be used to propagate the wrong view of science. According to DNA evidence, there are no races. There are gene clusters that define specific traits but the phenotype (the outward appearance) can be vastly different.

Agreed, but alont with the outwaard appearance there can be linked pridisposition to other traites. I'm delieberately being very careful so as not to add fuel to an ugly fire and my first example is deliberately non human and that is the example of ''Fatal white'' in horses. Ill not get to into it, but essentially, horses resultant from two parents with the same gene (reflected usually in parents phenotype) will not survive. Rather aptly for some here, these poor white creatures could quite literally be called annaly retentive, and as a result die in just a few days. They are born pure white, these fatal whites. A second example might be sickle cell. Which I'll not go in to further, again, because I don't want comments to be interpreted for ill purpose. (n.b. I am no genetisist so apologies for the flaws in my explanations I am not saying all examples of a phenotype will have a problem, I'm saying behind the appearnace can exist a predisposition, and that this is ore likely to occur with breeding in ''clusters''. Don'y marry your sibling.)

ninky_2

misskool wrote: »

According to DNA evidence, there are no races. There are gene clusters that define specific traits but the phenotype (the outward appearance) can be vastly different.

thanks misskool. have to admit i didn't bother with the youtube link but can guess at some of the contents based on your response.

humans are a species. that is why we can all breed with each other. like dogs i'm sure certain traits can be "bred in" to encourage certain characteristics. but we are not dogs and this is not crufts with judges on hand to assess breed characteristics. i'm happy with my "mongrel" background. and i'm sure if ultra10 could trace his / her family tree back several generations s/he would find s/he's a "mongrel" too. with some immigrant stock along the way.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

A second example might be sickle cell. Which I'll not go in to further, again, because I don't want comments to be interpreted for ill purpose.

myself and other half had to be tested for thalessemia (a type of sickle cell) as they won't let you marry in iran if you both have it due to passing it on to offspring. but although sickle cell and other genetic predispositions may be more clustered in people who originate from certain areas they are not found in everyone from that area. and upon breeding with others the trait will be passed on through.

i know similar genetic arguments have been put forward to claim that ashkenazi jews are somehow a "race" because of clusterings of genetic characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews which of course goes along with all the "chosen people" myths of judaism. but really the arguments don't stack up. cloning is the only way to ensure consistent genetics in reproduction. the rest is all a bit of genetic lottery. the only real consistency is that which makes us human (and who knows whether even that might evolve out in the future).

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

. i'm happy with my "mongrel" background. and i'm sure if ultra10 could trace his / her family tree back several generations s/he would find s/he's a "mongrel" too. with some immigrant stock along the way.

I'm a mongrel too, and I'm really proud of it.

There was a woman who used to campaigne for the beleagured white middle class against such travesties as ''coloured people'' and ''travellers''. Turned out, on genetic investication, well, she was a cross breed rather thn a mongrel.....with the biggest percentage being that akin to Romany gypsy.

To the far greater degree what we look like is open to interpretation. As a child returning to UK from hot and sunny climes it was generally assumed I was of mixed 'race'. DH could pass for what he is, or western european white, and in JFK airport he's had three ''detailed'' investigations, so they think he looks dodgy terrorist, and on Tuesday in the supermarket some body started speaking to him in Greek, and was shocked he wasn't greek.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

myself and other half had to be tested for thalessemia (a type of sickle cell) as they won't let you marry in iran if you both have it due to passing it on to offspring. but although sickle cell and other genetic predispositions may be more clustered in people who originate from certain areas they are not found in everyone from that area. and upon breeding with others the trait will be passed on through.

i know similar genetic arguments have been put forward to claim that ashkenazi jews are somehow a "race" because of clusterings of genetic characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews which of course goes along with all the "chosen people" myths of judaism. but really the arguments don't stack up. cloning is the only way to ensure consistent genetics in reproduction. the rest is all a bit of genetic lottery. the only real consistency is that which makes us human (and who knows whether even that might evolve out in the future).

IMO race, is akin to your dog breed example. Pure bred Golden Labradors, for example, areno more purebred than we would be through coice. Their are some studies of ''colour discrimination'' among animals...some of them quite decent studies, but of course, there are far more examples of very prolific cross breeding! No, just as there is no ''race'' of people, in that we are all the same species, there is no ''breed of dog''. However, it would be disingenuous to suggest people don't choose ''breeds' of animals for characteristics, often non appearance based. However, there dog would just as happily get off with the mongrel next door.

ETA: I'm not trying to be particularly difficult, but I think not being transparent abou the real life applications...eg, choosing a gun dog for its gun dog traits, but also knowing the gun dog would be just as happy copulating with a terrier, feeds in to the situation where a lot of people do seem unable to either realise where their thoughts become racist OR fall into the trap of thinking you can't say ''balck'' ''white'' for fear of being non-PC.

misskool

lostinrates wrote: »

Agreed, but alont with the outwaard appearance there can be linked pridisposition to other traites. I'm delieberately being very careful so as not to add fuel to an ugly fire and my first example is deliberately non human and that is the example of ''Fatal white'' in horses. Ill not get to into it, but essentially, horses resultant from two parents with the same gene (reflected usually in parents phenotype) will not survive. Rather aptly for some here, these poor white creatures could quite literally be called annaly retentive, and as a result die in just a few days. They are born pure white, these fatal whites. A second example might be sickle cell. Which I'll not go in to further, again, because I don't want comments to be interpreted for ill purpose. (n.b. I am no genetisist so apologies for the flaws in my explanations I am not saying all examples of a phenotype will have a problem, I'm saying behind the appearnace can exist a predisposition, and that this is ore likely to occur with breeding in ''clusters''. Don'y marry your sibling.)

Your explanation is perfect. Most organisms are diploid (they have 2 copies o of the same gene) .The phenotype is reflected from the genotype and there are dominant (strong) and recessive (weak) alleles (copies) of each gene. So if the illness is on the recessive allele and you need both alleles to be ill then you will show the phenotype that is reflected on the recessive allele. So when you have the fatal white horse it has 2 recessive alleles (showing white fur colour) and you know he/she is ill. But if you have a normal brown horse you dont know if they have both the strong copies or a strong and a weak copy.

This is true of many genetic anomalies (most striking being the case of albino skin)

ninky wrote: »

i know similar genetic arguments have been put forward to claim that ashkenazi jews are somehow a "race" because of clusterings of genetic characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews which of course goes along with all the "chosen people" myths of judaism. but really the arguments don't stack up. cloning is the only way to ensure consistent genetics in reproduction. the rest is all a bit of genetic lottery. the only real consistency is that which makes us human (and who knows whether even that might evolve out in the future).

Actually, the clusters of populations such as the ashkenazi jews and the amish are really interesting genetically. Because they have easy to trace lineages and intermarry, they create pockets of mutations within genes that show up more commonly than in normal population. They have certain genetic illnesses that occur at a higher rate than in a normal population. By tracing their genes, it's been possible to identify specific genes that cause specific illnesses.